The use of violence

I’m going to be out celebrating my grandmother’s 95th birthday, so there probably won’t be anything new until after it’s done.
But I did want to point out a source of some confusion regarding my opinions on violence.  On the one hand, I advocated shooting would-be illegal immigrants but I also condemned the Norway massacre.  Some might interpret this as inconsistency and, indeed, perhaps it is.  But I see a difference between shooting people who are in the midst of invading our country and shooting people who are not harming anybody at the moment.  There are a couple of other distinctions that should be made.
Should we shoot the illegal immigrants – if they’re 15 years old?  I say “yes” (in the legs, at first).  They are just as much a threat to our country as the older ones – probably even more so.  Should we advocate shooting up a La Raza youth rally?  I wouldn’t advocate it – but I would not mourn the victims either.  There is an almost 100% probability that the teenage Hispanics at that rally would all grow up to be adult anti-white activists.  The world would be a better place without them.  As for the white teenagers in Norway, I’ll admit ignorance – but, despite whatever sick ideologies they might have today, they belong to the race that is being dispossessed.  Their attitudes are likely to change.
The blog Unqualified Reservations (linked to by Apuleius in a prior post), by Mencius Moldbug, quotes Breivik’s essay – in which he describes himself, in his earlier years, as an active “tagger” and a hip-hop fan.  He also had gang affiliations (for protection).  If the adult Breivik had met the adolescent Breivik, he might have shot him.  It bugs me that Breivik felt justified in being the judge, jury and executioner for adolescents who were simply products of their upbringing and environment – just as he was.  At that age, we are all products of our circumstances.
This being said, I believe that early adolescents, who murder in cold blood, should be tried and punished as adults.  They are no longer “mislead youth” but real, dangerous, criminals.  Especially the black ones who seem to be married to the lowest part of their genome, and are unlikely to ever divorce it.  “Products of their circumstances or not”, such  creatures have no place among us.
The treatment of violence is a tricky thing.  To openly advocate it invites risks of criminal charges – unless one is advocating that government initiate violence; then it’s okay (sarcasm).  If we completely renounce violence, then we are doomed.  We must protect ourselves (and sometimes the best defense is an effective offense).  As Moldbug says (ibid.):

If you ask a lot of people to be angry about the Bronxification of East Oslo, someone is going to act on it. The goal of trumpeting is to obtain power, and the means of power is violence. To denounce violence is to renounce power. To renounce power is to surrender.

Perhaps, in Breivik’s shoes, I would see things differently – and it’s easy, from the comfort of my Northwest abode, to condemn such acts of desperation.  There’s a lot more to be said about this – and I’ll leave it to the commentators for now.  I’ve got a grandmother who needs visiting!

This entry was posted in crime and violence. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to The use of violence

  1. Ryu says:

    Once in a blue moon people change. I’d say that most people are pretty much fixed by their teens. ABB just had a revalation and changed from his old views.
    I was curious to see that you disagreed with ABB making himself judge, jury and executioner. Would someone else be better at the job? Maybe he could have been voted in?

  2. I wanted to make a comment on your thread relating to your having no intention to read Breivik´s manifesto but, since that is stale now, I´ll put it here…..
    Like you, I dont condone violence (at least not against non-violent opponents) to achieve political aims, and I was equally horrified as you to hear that so many young whites were killed by an ostensible ally of ours.
    After thinking dispassionately about his motives I have come to see some sense in his actions. It seems to me that even amongst right-wingers not enough emphasis has been put on the fact that Breiviks intention was not to punish the children, per se, but their traitorous parents.
    On this Amren thread about the rapid increase in Britains “ethnics”
    (sorry I dont know how to embed a link here)
    “fred” asked rhetorically “what is the punishment for treason?”
    My reply (dont know if they´ll allow it since it seems to be supportive of Breivik´s actions) was as follows……
    Death by firing squad…!!!
    Anders Breivik no doubt wanted to enact the said penalty on his own treasonous cultural Marxist politicians but, since politicians (certainly when in a large gathering) surround themselves with heavy security, it would have been almost impossible to get close enough to them to kill more than a handful (if even that) before being killed himself.
    Thus he decided the most effective way to punish them wholesale was to execute their unprotected children instead. Brutally harsh since not all of them would have grown up to share their parents leftist politics, although the majority presumably would have.

  3. Chullo says:

    You have been reported to Homeland Security as a clear terror threat.

    • dunno says:

      Dont worry — no real threat here.
      These punks have been doing this pseudo-flexing for many years on stormfront and isteve. Killing mexicans is a fantasy of theirs and will remain a fantasy.
      These boys arent made of the stuff that norwegian guy was.

  4. tino says:

    happy birthday to your grandmother jewamongyou!

  5. Apuleius says:

    Thanks for the honest, well reasoned analysis. My confidence in you has been restored. Our dilapidated system deals poorly with violence both at the interpersonal and the international level. IMO this is due to the effects of the dysfunctional liberal ideology. At least we aren’t Norwegian–the inept response to ABB was tragic in the extreme.
    On a lighter note, I learned most of what I know about violence from fighting with my brothers while growing up. Whenever I would fight with my older brother he would always use a quote: “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” Isaac Asimov, I believe. He was a big science fiction reader.
    His intent was to disarm me by forcing me to think. It worked. He would then proceed to kick my —. Needless to say, I was a terribly slow learner. Afterwards, he would almost always add to my humiliation by quipping, “You’re so predictable.” He was always bigger, so I eventually adapted to become a master of “hit and run” cavalry tactics using the element of surprise and a pair of fast legs.You learn a lot from family.
    Enjoy the time with your family and happy birthday to your grandmother.

  6. Unamused says:

    No time for principles. What do I care what the adult Breivik would have done to the adolescent Breivik, or the adolescent Breivik to the infant Breivik, or the infant Breivik to the embryonic Breivik? The adult Breivik was a man with a goal (fairly clearly defined) who judged that the murder of — what, 76? — civilians (sadly including some cute Norwegian girls) would help to accomplish it. “Justified in being the judge, jury and executioner”? Hardly. He wasn’t punishing criminals, he was (in his mind) achieving his goal. As Clint Eastwood once said, “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.” If I could exterminate half the world’s population, I would, and not because they deserve it. Just because there’s too damn many of them. And so on. Extract some meaning from these sentences if you wish.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Call it a weakness, but I could never bring myself to slaughter a bunch of teenagers (not talking about the thuggish, criminal kind), even if they are grossly misled. Since I wouldn’t do it myself, I can’t condone others doing it.

  7. Apuleius says:

    Well, when you put that way, I must agree. I want to stay on your good side. I’m part of the good half, you know. Honest.
    Besides anyone who likes kitties can’t be wrong.
    Btw, I like kitties, too.

    • jewamongyou says:

      I think we can either agree or disagree and still remain in the good graces of each other. If we agreed on everything, this whole blogging thing would be rather dull.

  8. When I was 14-16 my ideology was not far removed from these murdered Norwegian kids, but look where I am now.

  9. destructure says:

    Oh, I’m screwed now. I hate cats.

  10. Stealth says:

    I don’t think any illegal alien crossing the border needs to be or should be….. shot. It’s not necessary. Kind of seems like murder, for that matter. The paltry enforcement measures (all for show) put into place by the feds have already borne some fruit, even if unintentionally. Imagine what could be accomplished if the government actually put serious effort into stopping illegal immigration! You know, the kind of effort put forth when invading another country, but without all of that bloodshed.

  11. Bay Area Guy says:

    Thanks for the clarification, JAY.
    Still, advocating the shooting of 15 year olds, regardless of whether or not it’s non-fatal, and regardless of whether or not it serves a long term purpose, just doesn’t look good.
    Opinions that the system is completely rotten notwithstanding, I do believe that white activists can indeed work within this system.
    Fundamentally, the white masses agree with us on multiculturalism and immigration, and several states have either passed or considered passing punitive laws on immigration.
    For white advocates, we need to work within the system and engage the white masses.

  12. Annoyed says:

    Illegal immigrants could be shot with nonlethal rounds and caught with netguns, still other measures should be enacted which will likely do more, as in stopping social services and preventing employment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *